Henry Nowak murder

[Kinkybyname]

I'd dispute that last bit, sometimes you're trained to be an idiot..

The police are human like the rest of us but there's no way getting the initial information didn't colour their view of the situation they walked into

you're right, that last bit if fkn bollocks

 

[bert38]

Well exactly - to the author and the judge also.
Omitting key facts is a bit of a clue that may well be has happened

I posted the paper because I think it made valid points and could go some way to explaining how a mindset can get formed which creates a bias in their subsequent actions.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Apologies where in those references is that mentioned? Do you mean the police being told this at the scene after they’ve immediately already identified him as being injured?

The article is the only place I've read that. The line that referes to him being drunk lists ref's 22 & 23 at the bottom of the article.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I posted the paper because I think it made valid points and could go some way to explaining how a mindset can get formed which creates a bias in their subsequent actions.

Yeah it was helpful. People responding to something cling to information which supports their view. It’s a form of confirmation bias.

What I’m saying is the judge (no criticism by the way of him, he was tasked with dealing with a murder not specifically the action of the police) and the author are focussing on stuff that supports their view of an incident.

Neither mention or even consider that the fact the police were IMMEDIATELY aware of Henry’s injuries and lacked curiosity about that (I’m being generous there). Suggests groupthink

 

[ayrshire_blue]

How many officers attended the scene ? It's been reported as three. So yes this 1-3 minutes is bollocks.
Three officers had 1-3 minutes each but not one of them acted accordingly towards the casualty, in plane sight.

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

 

[hilts]

It seems some are trying awfully hard to justify people not doing the very natural thing of checking out if the only injured person in the vicinity was okay.

 

[bert38]

Yeah it was helpful. People responding to something cling to information which supports their view. It’s a form of confirmation bias.

What I’m saying is the judge (no criticism by the way of him, he was tasked with dealing with a murder not specifically the action of the police) and the author are focussing on stuff that supports their view of an incident.

Neither mention or even consider that the fact the police were IMMEDIATELY aware of Henry’s injuries and lacked curiosity about that (I’m being generous there). Suggests groupthink

Yes, I agree-that will frame the IOPC inquiry.

And the phrase ‘lacked curiosity’ will v likely appear-sounds like you’ve read a IOPC report before?!

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

The article is the only place I've read that. The line that referes to him being drunk lists ref's 22 & 23 at the bottom of the article.

Bottom of which article? Obviously I can read the Wikipedia post but I can’t see reference to this. Nor the bbc article. I can’t access the local news article as you need to pay to subscribe. Are you able to screenshot? (I’m not being obtuse here btw just genuinely can’t see what you are referring to!)

 

[bert38]

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

You make a very good point-rest assured an awful lot of people being arrested now are saying ‘I’ve got an injury’ (good luck finding it..). It will replace the ‘chest pains’ line.

I can see a recommendation in the future that arresting officers conduct a top to toe survey on arrest-

That would necessitate a change in handcuff policy-because that would mean everyone would need cuffing.
It would also mean a change in law around searches post arrest (s32 now means you can search for articles linking to the offence for which they’ve been arrested) because a thorough search would make it a strip search (more than outer clothing) and that carries with it other requirements-same sex, out of public view, if juvenile adult present….so a load of extra work, logistics as well as more detained people getting ‘man handled’ and anxious and violent on arrest.

 

[Kinkybyname]

I'd dispute that last bit, sometimes you're trained to be an idiot..

The police are human like the rest of us but there's no way getting the initial information didn't colour their view of the situation they walked into

Judge Andrew Simpson likes this post

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Yes, I agree-that will frame the IOPC inquiry.

And the phrase ‘lacked curiosity’ will v likely appear-sounds like you’ve read a IOPC report before?!

It is fair to say I have some experience in this area, yes

 

[hilts]

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

I think I asked you before so I will try again what were the police told by the emergency services on the way to the incident that makes you believe he should be described as an assailant and what was a danger when the first sight of him was either being on the floor or being propped up with blood in his mouth ?

 

[Ohrodneyrodney]

Becuse he'd wrongly been identified as the agressor. The actions of any emegency services personnel upon ariving at the scene of an icident it to ensure their own safety and the safety of others.

Nowak was reported to be drunk by Digwa which would have had bearing on how the officers approached the situation. From personal experience, drunk people can go from placcid and unresponsive to lashing out and causing havoc in next to no time. Cuffing him whilst trying to ascertain the facts would have been a no-brainer.

That has to be one of most ill thought out posts I’ve ever read.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

You said the officers were told he was injured running away.
That makes him a casualty, does it not ? His wellbeing should've been assessed, should it not? The extent of his possible injuries, should have been assessed, should they not ?
That's without him pleading he's been stabbed.
Under no circumstances, whatsoever , should the reply have been "I don't think you have mate".

 

[Kinkybyname]

If every single claim of injury any time police hear it from potential suspects is to believed at face value, you'll end up with a hell of a lot more criminals getting away and/or assaulting cops (or the public) because they've not been suitably restrained. Potentially serious consequences the other way. There's surely a damned if you do, damned if you don't element to scenarios such as this, or at the very least an element of gamble whichever way they choose to proceed.

He was wrongfully painted as the assailant, I do think it was unnecessary to cuff him when they did but there would've been a natural instinct to secure the "suspect" and expectation that he'll soon come round from a fall that he's had, or at the very least the belief that if in need of medical help then it wasn't so critical as how it turned out to be.

that element ends when the suspoect offers absolutley no resistance and says I can't breathe - if it doesn't you're a fkn disgrace to your profession

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

You make a very good point-rest assured an awful lot of people being arrested now are saying ‘I’ve got an injury’ (good luck finding it..). It will replace the ‘chest pains’ line.

I have personally attended a call where a drunk guy in the custody of the police was claiming he was suffering with chest pains. We had him in the back of the ambulance with the door pulled shut and the copper stood outsode the door. Once he was inside he actually whispered to us that he was faking it. Luckily he wasn't in the least bit aggressive towards us.

A former collegue of mine was in a similar situation with a drunk guy and ended up getting stabbed in the stomach before the copper jumped in and restrained him.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I think I asked you before so I will try again what were the police told by the emergency services on the way to the incident that makes you believe he should be described as an assailant and what was a danger when the first sight of him was either being on the floor or being propped up with blood in his mouth ?

I never said they were told by emergency services on the way to the call. I don't know details of what was said in the actual call other than they had awareness some sort of disturbance had taken place.

The point is that when they arrived at the scene, probably without any knowledge at that point of what's gone on, they were told by several people what had happened. That turned out to be a huge, awful, pack of lies. But at the time, there'd have been a natural human instinct to believe the little information you've been given and act based on that. With no mention of a stabbing from the family and information that the "assailant" has fell when trying to run away, as bad as it sounds it isn't irrational to assume he's a suspect who's either drunk and/or concussed saying they've been stabbed when in actual fact they've assaulted someone and fell.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That has to be one of most ill thought out posts I’ve ever read.

My personal experience, as well as the experiences of people I know personally are ill thought out?

 

[hilts]

That has to be one of most ill thought out posts I’ve ever read.

You not getting on board with dying lad about to turn into Bruce Lee and cause 'havoc' at any second.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I never said they were told by emergency services on the way to the call. I don't know details of what was said in the actual call other than they had awareness some sort of disturbance had taken place.

The point is that when they arrived at the scene, probably without any knowledge at that point of what's gone on, they were told by several people what had happened. That turned out to be a huge, awful, pack of lies. But at the time, there'd have been a natural human instinct to believe the little information you've been given and act based on that. With no mention of a stabbing from the family and information that the "assailant" has fell when trying to run away, as bad as it sounds it isn't irrational to assume he's a suspect who's either drunk and/or concussed saying they've been stabbed when in actual fact they've assaulted someone and fell.

Assaulted someone without a scratch on them?